Product Partners Substantiates General Performace Claims And Agrees To Modify Consumer Testimonials
New York, NY – November 3, 2004 – The Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program (“ERSP”), the ele ctronic direct-response industry’s self-regulatory forum supervised by the National Advertising Review Council (“NARC”), announced that direct response marketer Product Partners, LLC has provided a reasonable basis for general performance claims for its “Slim-In-6” and “6-Day Express
Body Program,” and also voluntarily agreed to modify consumer testimonials included in the infomercial. The truth and accuracy of the marketer’s claims came to the attention of ERSP through its on-going monitoring program.
In the inquiry, ERSP requested that the marketer provide substantiation for several core performance claims and consumer testimonials that were communicated in the 30-minute advertisement for “Slim-In-
6” and the “6-Day Express Body Program.” Among the representative claims at issue were that: “[following this program] I lost 45 pounds”; “…went from a size 14 to a size 4.”; “Lost 73 pounds”; “Each week I lose three, four, fiv e pounds”; “Never before has losing weight been as fast and effective as with Slim in 6.”; and that “Slim training is a scientifically proven technique that combines moderate aerobic moves with light weight resistance training.”
Based upon ERSP’s preliminary review, it was concluded that Product Partners provided a reasonable basis for claims pertaining to the general performance capabilities (i.e., “Slim training is a scientifically proven technique that combines moderate aerobic moves with light weight resistance training”)and safety of the “Slim- In-6” and “6-Day Body Express” programs.
However, with respect to consumer testimonials which claim a specific amount of weight loss (in an unspecified time frame), ERSP determined that without any indication otherwise, it would be reasonable for consumers to interpret these anecdotal scenarios as having occurred within the first six weeks of using Slim-In-6. Accordingly, the marketer voluntarily agreed to add a super to each testimonial which reported a weight loss that took longer than six weeks to achieve and disclose how long it took those consumers to lose the pounds they reported.
In its acceptance of ERSP’s recommendations, the marketer also called for “other direct- response marketers to join Product Partners in supporting the ERSP program.”
Subscribe to the Ad Law Insights or Privacy Initiatives newsletters for an exclusive monthly analysis and insider perspectives on the latest trends and case decisions in advertising law and data privacy.
Latest Decisions
National Advertising Division Recommends Oral Essentials Discontinue "Certified Non-Toxic" Claim for its Lumineux Mouthwash
New York, NY – December 30, 2024 – In a Fast-Track SWIFT challenge brought by GuruNanda, the National Advertising Division recommended that Oral Essentials discontinue its claim that Lumineux mouthwash products are “Certified Non-Toxic.”
NARB Recommends T-Mobile Discontinue or Modify Commercial to Better Disclose Conditions of Free iPhone Offer, 20% Savings Claim
New York, NY – December 30, 2024 – A panel of the National Advertising Review Board (NARB) recommended that T-Mobile discontinue or modify its commercial to better disclose the material conditions of its free iPhone 16 Pro offer and its 20% rate plan savings claim compared to AT&T and Verizon.
Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council Recommends Valentus Discontinue Earnings and Product Performance Claims
McLean, VA – December 23, 2024 – The Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council (DSSRC) recommended Valentus, a direct selling company that sells nutritional and lifestyle products, discontinue earnings and health-related product performance claims made on social media and on the Valentus website.
Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council Refers Olive Tree Earnings Claims to the FTC and California AG for Possible Enforcement Action
McLean, VA – December 20, 2024 – The Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council (DSSRC) referred Olive Tree to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and California Attorney General's Office for possible enforcement action after Olive Tree failed to respond to a DSSRC inquiry into earnings claims.